‘Beat Saber’ Earned Nearly $100M in Revenue Last Year Alone

But you just give a big reason why studio’s are afraid to invest a lot in PCVR games. You can creat such a beautiful and expensive game, but if it doesn’t make it’s money back it’s useless. The marktet for VR is still too small to take such big risks. One advantage for a PSVR2 game like horizon is that they already made most of the assets for their normal game, so it isn’t a big risk to use those and have a few people work on a VR version. Just like with Ubisoft and their location based VR games, they are mostly based off content already created for their normal games.

Cheap and old games are not the way. That’s not going to work. It will help fill in between bigger releases. But gamers want new games. It’ll makes money for some in the short term. Might even help developers learn VR by using a familiar game already made without going through the usual process of new game creation. But it’s not a long term solution.

It’s like Naughty Dog. They ported The Last of Us to PS4 before building all their new games for PS4 with that knowledge. They are now porting a remake for PS5. That information will help some of their programmers build PS5 only games. It’s extra cash reselling it. But Naughty Dog AREN’T going to port ALL their old games to PS5 as a standard to make a quick buck because PlayStation owners will pull away from that. They want new games for a new console. Just like VR gamers want new games for new headsets.

PC’s biggest problems are price and ease of use. To play the latest games in or out of VR in good quality, you have to have a decent setup that’s costly. That’s just a fact. The confusion for some consumers to what they need to buy for games to work on PC is why some shy away from it towards plug and play console gaming. Countless comments all over the Internet are from gamers wondering what they need for a good VR setup on PC. It’s easy for some used to PC gaming. But not someone starting out.

GTA is a big name and big game. But you can already play that in VR on PC through a mod. It has not drawn gamers to it. But if GTA gets announced for PS VR 2, it’s name and release would be considered huge and again, it’s plug and play.

The fact remains is that third parties, if they are not getting paid for exclusivity, like more than one platform to spread their eggs out. Putting a huge AAA game in one basket is risky today. That’s why you see an Xbox, PC and PlayStation port of games. PSVR is on its way out. No point of porting besides the lack of analog sticks and power. And PS VR 2 is a ways out it seems. Third parties for VR don’t make PC only releases normally. Only rare like Flight Simulator or F1. But when PS VR 2 is on the market, which will be at a level that ports can be made back and forth across a popular console platform and PC, games are going to flow consistently across platforms. Alyx will come to PS VR 2. And games not exclusive to PS VR 2 will come to PC. More baskets, more chances of success across the board. It’s why you see PC and Quest releases. More baskets.

Quest might be getting sales on cheap creations right now. But long term, gamers will want more than that where it feels like cheap tech demos and early access games needing more polish that you can side load. We don’t see third parties making big AAA games for Quest either. As much as the headset is selling, Zuckerberg has to pay to get a big game for it. Where’s Quest 1st Party? It’s severely lacking. Third parties aren’t falling over themselves to make games for it. And, the tech is outdated. It’s cool for what it is. But companies have moved on beyond games from PS2 level of graphics, physics, etc that Quest just can’t do. It still can’t do Skyrim. And it came out years ago in VR. Won’t even fit in storage space on lesser models.

Point I’m trying to make is, PS VR 2 will lift all boats. PC, Quest and console. Big games can make profit like GTA just like small games like beat saber or they wouldn’t be made. Big games will come to PC because PS VR 2 will allow porting to be easier across platforms. And third parties are waiting for that. When Sony announces their line up, you’ll see the companies and then you’ll know that some will come to PC. Then, we can come back and debate about it.

I’m aware that the best solution is a native VR game. But Skyrim and RE7 weren’t native and were accepted just fine on PC and PSVR. And Skyrim had no motion control function initially. Both games unplayable on Quest only. No Man Sky is coming to Switch. Was repurposed for PSVR and PC as it didn’t have motion controls. Unplayable on stand alone only. Why, because it can’t and is outdated. MMS is coming to PS VR 2. No announcement for Quest yet. Why? You know. I know you know.

RE4 did sell for a minute. Now, no one really cares. Gamers went right back to beat saber. They care for the announcement of RE4 and RE8 for PS VR 2 though. Because it’ll be better and not 20 year old graphics. GTA SA is coming. And that fine. It’ll sell well for a time. Because there isn’t any competition. But Zuckerberg had to pay for it. Rockstar didn’t approach them. Facebook approached Rockstar I’d bet. It’ll sell because Quest needs big games. But gamers will forget it if GTA is announced for PS VR 2.

You give Facebook a lot of credit. And they should for the tech involved at least. But their first Party sucks. Just riding off of micro transactions from a music game with the same repetitive gameplay. The bullshit you say about PC. What new first Party game has come from Facebook? Jack shit. Nada. Zero. Just micro transactions.

As I said, Quest is only getting attention because they are sitting in the valley before the coming of better equipment. They make hand tracking. But no games to support it like Nintendo would do. Why? Because Facebook’s first Party sucks. Splinter Cell? Assassin’s Creed? GTA? RE4? None are first Party. Why? Because Facebook first Party sucks. Instead of spending money on features that add nothing, maybe they should be creating first Party studios or buy some. You talk a lot about PC. While looking at Quest with rose colored glasses. Sony won’t have that problem. They have one of the best studios in the business. Their tech already looks forward thinking as the headset can be used on PS6 because of the eye tracking. And some of those third party games will come to PC. Quest is dated. Only possible way of getting better is yet another headset after Go and Quest and Quest 2. And Cambria isn’t going to make Quest 2 better. The graphics or gameplay. It’ll just make it look even more dated while being more expensive. And still no games from first Party. Zuckerberg showing all those future headsets like anyone cares when no games are being announced from first Party. Ready at Dawn is first Party. A very good developer. Where’s their game for VR? How long do gamers have to wait for it?

You can dog PC all you want to your hearts content while ignoring the fact that Quest lives on DLC and micro transactions and simple games that look like first generation VR games. Hope you’re happy with them. It won’t get any better than 20 year old graphics. Maybe you’ll get yet another exercise game. Yeah. That’s the ticket.

As you said above. What’s the profit? Who cares about the revenue when we’re not getting all of the information.

Virgin is trying to sell you on the idea that no company should invest in more advanced games for PC and possibly PS VR 2. He thinks simple games like on Quest 2 are where the money is.. Going by his thinking, there should be no advancement in gaming or AAA games. Just bring old games back in high resolution from 20 years ago. When we know that’s not going to work in the long run. Gamers will revolt when they see no evolution in games. Even Quest gamers would get tired of playing 20 year old games.

Why make new TVs, cars, movies, cellphones, etc? Just resell an old B&W CRT, an old Yugo, remasters of Knight Rider and an old Brick Phone. Doesn’t make any business sense.

Spider-man PS4 or any big Sony 1st Party that sold millions, Red Dead, GTA, FIFA, COD, etc go against this nonsense he’s saying. It’s about game budgets big and small, staying within that budget, including marketing, and hopefully you can attract gamers with quality gameplay and sales. Beat Saber as proof simple games should only be made? Ridiculous coming from him.

Beat Saber is just another game in a long line of fad releases connected to music. DDR, Drum Mania, Rock Band, Guitar Hero, Sing Star, etc. Are those games fun? Yup. Now, are those games still the rage any more? **NOPE.** I mean, it’s possible Beat Saber could have staying power and defy history. But chances are, it’ll fade just like the rest.

He’s saying this stuff in the lull between transitions. When PS VR 2 releases, games developers big and small will be making multiplatform games across it and PC. Quest 2, which is already outdated running 20 year old games, will hit a dead end for development that we can already see. Are big 3rd parties making Quest games? NOPE. Only with a check from Zuckerberg like Capcom. And what’s coming? More 20 year old games. Quest had all these sales but no big budget games. We saw that last video show. Just filled with budget A games. There was disappointment across the board when gamers saw those games that looked like early VR releases. And Virgin wants more of that? Lol.

To think, Virgin believes the future of the VR industry, is games made during the early 2000’s when Usher was top of the music charts with “Yeah” in 2004.

I’m not speaking in the sense that old games are trash. I’ve been playing game gear, NES and PS1 in the last week. More so than PS4 and VR at the moment.

But new headsets can’t survive on old games repurposed for VR. They may add to the catalog. But old games are not the way forward for VR. Even with added motion controls.

Beat Saber is probably a good game. I didn’t buy it. But I understand the group of gamers that like music games. And I wouldn’t get myself drawn into buying music tracks because micro transactions are another problem in itself.

Even games like Dance Central was big at one time for 360. As music can create immersion. But what he’s saying is that developers should give up making big games for PC and just keep making simple games for huge profits. But as Christian and I were saying, big games and small games have budgets. Big games can rake in the profits just like smaller games. And smaller games on small budgets can fail to gain a following just like big games made. He talks about player numbers but a lot of gamers play VR singles player. I don’t even subscribe to play online because it’s really not that big a deal. It’s fun. But so is local multiplayer. But he’s picking certain games as proof that VR is failing on PC. PC will pick up when PS VR 2 hits. Guaranteed.

He just ignores that because he has some type of beef against Steam, Gabe, whatever. Doesn’t matter the site he’s on like upload or road, it can be an article not even about PC and he’ll turn it into a negative against PC. And I’m not even a PC gamer and notice it.

Anyone can pull this off and capitalize on simple mechanic. If it works, great, you can farm this concept for years until someone else takes your place.

That’s not really how game development works. It can be in the initial phase of a platform, when there isn’t a lot of competition, but that doesn’t last long, as we have seen with the relentless flood of wave shooters in the early days of VR. This goes on for a while due to development times, so you’ll still get wave shooters long after the concept is obviously dead, simply because developers finally finished the games they started when it still seemed a good idea. But after some time taking any simple established concept to reduce the financial risk also means that it gets much harder to get even noticed. I wouldn’t recommend creating another rhythm based movement game for VR, even if this genre currently makes the most money by far.

Contrary to what many believe AAA isn’t defined by quality, but by budgets. And that doesn’t only mean people working on it and money spend on development, but also marketing budgets, which often surpass the production costs. So the incentive to create a technical complex game at high financial risk is that there is a higher chance that customers will actually notice it, so the millions you throw at advertising campaigns actually generate some traction. The same reason companies pay millions for movie franchise licenses instead of simply calling the game Arachnoboy. The extreme case is the current mobile game market, where you need a marketing budget magnitudes larger than the development costs to ensure sufficient user numbers.

Beat Saber isn’t a hit because it is simple. Beat Saber is a hit because it was unique at the time, introduced a very fitting mechanic for VR, got an incredible amount of free promotion thanks to becoming the accidental poster child for VR, and then got bough by Meta that were able to pay for Lady Gaga license rights.

The right place at the right time. And after that a lot of polishing, which is, contrary to what you seem to assume, very hard and expensive, even for mechanically simple games. There are hours of documentation on why Mario jumps the way he jumps, and why this is important.

You switched the criteria with your answer, from “what generates revenue and entices the development of new titles”, to “what keeps people engaged”, which is obviously not the same. Pavlov doesn’t generate extra revenue thanks to prolonged user activity, Beat Saber does if people continue to pay for new DLC, and for Supernatural, the app most likely to have made the second highest revenue of USD 60mn, continued user engagement equals revenue due to subscription fees.

Any postmortem analysis why something became a hit is bound to fall into the survival bias trap, where a reasoning is created why it was a success with no way to test if this is what actually happened, or if there were other important factors, or if it was purely accidental. The failure of companies to artificially create viral hits is an indicator that chance often plays a much bigger role than expected. Which is why I am reluctant to predict what future VR games will look like.

So far no gaming platform has ever been completely dominated by only one type of game, the only limits are technical capabilities. Looking at past VR and pancake games I’d expect neither a “casual only” nor a “hardcore only”, but a “wild mix of whatever makes money” for the future, with some surprises nobody will see coming. That is, of course, also just a guess. I will never claim to know the ultimate truth. Not even the truth. I’ll settle for “plausible reasoning” and “getting the math right”.